RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        29 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050007341


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson        |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his reentry (RE) code on his DD
Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or
Discharge) be changed.

2.  The applicant states that he wants the RE code "lifted" so that he can
serve in the Army Reserve.  The applicant continues that he is in perfect
shape and that, if needed, he will proudly serve in the military.

3.  The applicant did not provide any documentary evidence in support of
this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 4 February 1985, the date of his discharge from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 28 April 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 2 February 1983.  He was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 43E1P (Parachute Rigger)
and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was
specialist four/pay grade E-4.

4.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

5.  The record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance
of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for making and uttering six checks
for the purpose of obtaining U.S. currency and various goods without
maintaining the proper funds for said payments and for making and uttering
two checks to a civilian individual without maintaining proper funds for
said payments.

6.  Records show that on 26 November 1984, the applicant's commanding
officer approved a bar to reenlistment, notified the applicant of the bar
to reenlistment, and directed that the remark "Not recommended for further
service" be entered on the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Individual's
Qualification Record).

7.  On 26 November 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
Notification of Bar to Reenlistment.

8.  On 12 December 1984, the applicant requested immediate separation due
to the fact that he felt he could not overcome the locally imposed bar to
reenlistment.  He also acknowledged that once separated he would not be
permitted to reenlist at a later date.

9.  On 22 January 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's
discharge under the provisions of paragraph 16-5 of Army Regulation 635-200
(Personnel Separations).  The DD Form 214 issued to him at the time
confirms the applicant completed a total of 2 years and 3 days of
creditable active military service.  This form also shows the applicant was
discharged under the provisions of paragraph 16-5b of Army Regulation 635-
200 for a locally imposed bar to reenlistment, he was assigned a
corresponding separation program designator (SPD) code of KGF, and that his
RE code was "4."

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by
changes in service obligations. Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied
reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally
imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to
overcome the bar, may apply for immediate discharge. Incident to the
request the member must state that he understands that recoupment of
unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is required and
that later reenlistment is not permitted.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities
(regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active
duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It states, in
pertinent part, that the SPD code of KGF is the appropriate code to assign
to Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 16-5 of Army
Regulation 635-200, by reason of Headquarters, Department of the Army bar
to reenlistment or locally imposed
bar to reenlistment.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table included in the
regulation establishes RE-4 as the proper code to assign members separated
with this SPD code.

12.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release
from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their
service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210
(Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), covers eligibility
criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the
Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation
prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.
That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE
codes.  RE-4 applies to persons who are disqualified for continued Army
service and the disqualification is not waivable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his RE code should be upgraded so that he
can serve in the military.

2.  The applicant requested early separation based on the locally imposed
bar to reenlistment.  In his request, he acknowledged that he would not be
allowed to reenlist for future military service.

3.  The record confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were
met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the
separation process.  The record further shows the applicant’s discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must
satisfactorily show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the
record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit
sufficient evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to amend the RE code as
requested by the applicant.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 February 1985; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 3 February 1988.  The applicant did not file within
the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling
explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice
to excuse failure to timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_LMD____  __SK___  _MHM___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                      __Stanley Kelley___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007341                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051129                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]